invoiceninja_get_statics

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond that — nothing on pagination via limit, search matching behavior, or result shape. With annotations carrying the burden, a 3 is appropriate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource and ending with the actionable use case. No filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, so the description would ideally sketch the return shape (id/name pairs per section). It compensates partly by naming the sections and the id-to-name translation goal, but leaves an agent guessing about the returned structure and ordering.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with section enum and limit/search documented inline, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the section families and frames their purpose (id translation) but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (look up) plus resource (static reference data) and enumerates the section families returned. It further clarifies the practical purpose — translating ids like currency_id/country_id/type_id into names — which cleanly separates it from the entity list/get siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Clearly conveys the context of use: consult it when you need to resolve an id into a human-readable name. No explicit exclusions or named alternatives are given, but for a reference-data lookup the trigger condition is unambiguous.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.